Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1954

Vol. 144 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Wexford Unemployment Benefit Claims.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state (1) the number of claimants for unemployment benefit who appeared before the appeals officer at the Wexford employment exchange on 7th January, 1954, and (2) the number of claims disallowed by the appeals officer.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state whether all those persons whose claims for unemployment benefit were heard by an appeals officer on 7th January, 1954, at Wexford were, as laid down by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, sent written notice to attend at the employment exchange.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state on what date the manager of the Wexford employment exchange was notified that the appeals officer would attend at Wexford on 7th January, 1954, to hear appeals by claimants for unemployment benefit.

I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission to take the replies to Questions Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together.

The manager of the Wexford employment exchange was notified on the 29th December, 1953, that an appeals officer would attend at Wexford on the 7th January, 1954, to hear appeals. All the appellants concerned were notified by the employment exchange in writing. There were 15 appeals in connection with unemployment benefit. Twelve of the appellants attended the hearing and in 11 of these cases the appeals were disallowed and one case was deferred for further inquiries. The three cases in which the appellants did not appear were also disallowed.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at least five of those people who appeared before the appeals officer did not receive notice in writing to appear at the labour exchange and that at least four of them were notified at 9.30 on the morning of 7th January to appear before the appeals officer at 10 o'clock on that morning?

The manager of the employment exchange at Wexford was notified over the telephone on 29th December, 1953, that an appeals officer would hear appeals at Wexford on 7th January, 1954. On the 2nd January, 1954, in accordance with the normal practice, written notification regarding the date and time of the hearing was issued by the employment exchange to each of the 12 appellants whose appeals were on hands at the exchange on that date. Between the 2nd January, 1954, and the date of the hearing three fresh appeals were lodged. The appellants in these cases were also notified in writing to attend the hearing on the 7th January and, in fact, the three attended. Those three people were notified to attend so that their cases might be disposed of without delay. It should be noted that if any of them had asked for a postponement of his case, because of short notice, the appeals officer would, as is always done in such circumstances, have deferred the case to a future hearing.

If I could produce real evidence that some of these people did not get written notice and that some of them received only half an hour's notice before the time they were to appear, would the Parliamentary Secretary have the matter investigated with a view to rehearing those cases?

I will submit the evidence to the Minister.

These people are prepared to swear they did not get notice.

Top
Share